Munroe Bergdorf

[ripples101]

I am trans.

I was a follower of Munroe Bergdorf’s Instagram.

Munroe wrote a post about JK Rowling, calling her a dangerous woman to the trans community. Munroe stayed something along the lines of

“JKR is a dangerous cisgendered, white woman who is causing harm”

I replied to this post, asking why Munroe felt it necessary to mention JK Rowing’s racial identity.

I wasn’t Abusive. I just felt that it wasn’t necessary, in regards to what Munroe was being critical of, to mention JK Rowling’s ethnicity.

Within minutes my post was deleted and I was blocked.

I am trans, and Munroe has silenced me.

So it seems nothing can be questioned. Any intent to ask a question, or to strike up debate, will be met with being silenced.

This is fast turning into propaganda. This is fast turning into thought crime. This is fast turning into silencing. This is fast turning into something it should never have been.

When a trans person isn’t even able to question another trans person, what chance do “people who belong to sex that menstruate”* have?

• Christ, I don’t even feel like I can use the word women here without being controversial.

I am so sorry for people to whom I thought I identified alongside (trans people) who are doing this to you. I feel sick and ashamed of what I am, because of people who are representing me.

I feel like I literally have no space left. And I can’t help but feel that a lot of biological woman are feeling the same way. And you have so much more to lose than I ever will, so I simply can’t imagine how this is making you all feel.

^One of the kids on the puberty blocker trial lost so much bone density in their jaw their teeth started dropping out.
^^
^Not harmless. Not reversible.

That's horrifying.

Yep. The emerging picture indicates that the long term side effects of puberty blocking are far harder on the natal female body.

We know that women are at risk of poor bone density/osteoporosis, especially at menopause.

We know hormonal levels can cause tooth loss relating to pregnancy/post partum status (it’s why mothers can get NHS funded dental care for a limited period).

So it’s not a massive suprise that putting a tanner stage 2/3/4 female into artificially induced menopause can result in tooth loss.

Once you lose your first adult tooth prematurely it sets up a domino fall of consequences for other tooth/gum/jaw issues, so it’s not as if it can be resolved simply with a high grade dental implant. If none desire loss is severe you need a bone graft before implant anyway.

The Lupron women also report all sorts of tooth and jaw issues. There is no excuse for medical professionals and enthusiasts proponents of paediatric gender transition not to know this - that they don’t talk about it seems to me to be motivated by wilful ignorance.

ripples101
I feel sick and ashamed of what I am, because of people who are representing me.

I'm "representing" you as someone who can't see their own privilege or their own white fragility. Being trans is incidental. Agreeing or disagreeing with MB is incidental. You are self-silencing, not silenced. I'm not alone in pointing this out as a response to your primary complaint, and yet you have nothing to say on the subject and this thread is chaos.

For someone to question, in the way the OP did, a reference to 'whiteness', especially by a POC, does not remotely sound like the start of a good-faith exchange and so OP was blocked.
There is nothing shocking or surprising in that. MB was obviously unimpressed with what they quite likely saw as a petty and offensive comment There is something to be learned about racial privilege and the responsibility of POC to educate fragile white people

JKR didn’t write anything about race, it was petty of MB to bring her race into it when the majority of people in the U.K. are white, the majority of women in the U.K. are white and the majority of trans people in the U.K. are white.

The issues around sex based rights and trans women in female only spaces are not affected by race except in some very specific circumstances where services are quite rightly provided only for women from certain ethnic minorities who may not access the services if they were majority white.

If the OPs comment was petty then MB could have just scrolled on, there was no need to block, the OP was blocked because she was right that JKRs whiteness is not relevant. That JKR is rich may well be relevant, but that she has not always been rich and has been a victim of male violence overrides the fact that she is now wealthy enough not to need to use the same shared spaces the rest of us plebs do.

if bone density loss is severe you need a bone graft before implant anyway

Stupid autocorrect

These days the NHS generally harvests bone from your hip for grafting,

If your bone density is completely fucked the bone comes from human cadavers.

So, I suppose, bone jaw loss is reversible, if you consider having someone else’s bone in your jaw as ‘reversed’

I’d say that’s bit of a stretch, meself.

I wasn’t Abusive. I just felt that it wasn’t necessary, in regards to what Munroe was being critical of, to mention JK Rowling’s ethnicity.

It isn't necessary. And it's being used to stop women talking. Fortunately, it's having the opposite affect, and it's making more women talk. All colours, all ethnicities - see the Lipstick Alley link upthread.

*I'm "representing" you as someone who can't see their own privilege or their own white fragility. Being trans is incidental. Agreeing or disagreeing with MB is incidental. You are self-silencing, not silenced. I'm not alone in pointing this out as a response to your primary complaint, and yet you have nothing to say on the subject and this thread is chaos.

And what has this got to do with anything JK Rowling has actually said? Where does critical race theory apply to paediatric gender transition?

That Munroe uses Critical Race Theory to shut down discussion about women’s rights and medical experimentation on children’s bodies is actually revolting.

And you have fallen for it.

That Munroe uses Critical Race Theory to shut down discussion about women’s rights and medical experimentation on children’s bodies is actually revolting.

And you have fallen for it.

YY. We however, see it.

Here's what I don't understand. The trans kids thing? We've been there before. We've GOT the studies. This is going to end in disaster.

In 1980, 'Gender Identity Disorder of Childhood' was added to the DSM-3. The 'condition' had been studied since the early 1970s. After the publication of several long term (10 to 15 years) studies, the revised DSM-3 had this to say in 1987: "studies indicate that from one third to two thirds of boys with the disorder develop a homosexual orientation" and the rest are straight. With regard to girls, "most give up...male activities and attire during late childhood or adolescence." (p.72) Only a handful of kids ever go on to develop a trans identity in later life. This was in the 80s!

Then comes the real kicker: "whereas most adults with transsexualism report having a gender identity problem during childhood, studies of children with gender identity disorder of childhood indicate that very few develop transexualism in adolescence or adulthood." (p.72). Eventually, in the early 90s, the programs to treat trans kids were disbanded because there was real concern for practitioners that this was effectively stamping out the development of gay identity in children.

Also note that in the 70s and 80s the vast, vast majority of children with this 'disorder' were male - "there are many more boys with this disorder." (p.73) In my lifetime, this ratio has entirely switched around. Now there are many more girls with this disorder than boys. How has this happened in such a short period of time? And why? Doesn't this suggest this condition is strongly influenced by societal trends?

So we have evidence from the 80s that despite what adult trans people say there is no connection between trans kids and trans adults - the idea that they 'always' knew they were trans is probably post hoc confabulation, because there simply aren't enough children who go on to develop trans identities. And we also know that most kids, whether they are left alone or encouraged to be more gender conforming, end up either being straight or gay - very few go on to develop a trans identity. Why, then, are practitioners ignoring this research and ploughing ahead with gender affirmation treatments?

The thing that is most awful to me is this: in the 70s and 80s the kids were at most subjected to behavioural intervention. There were two treatment paradigms. On the first, the boys would be banned from playing with barbies and dolls. They would be forced into a masculine role. The poor things would even be slapped if they dangled their wrists too much (!) On the second treatment paradigm, the kids could do what they wanted but the researchers would also expose them to a wider variety of toys, clothing and play. None of these 'treatments' made any difference anyway - the kids still grew up to be gay or straight. But what chills me is that at least in the long term these treatments were relatively harmless. A boy could still grow up to be a gay man and have healthy gay relationships. Now? We are drugging these children and letting them have irreversible surgeries. This means these kids will find it far more difficult to have normal healthy relationships. How can doctors be allowed to do this when we already tried this in the 80s and it turned out to be bullshit?

Anybody play that game at uni where you have to keep on topic during an entire discussion, and if anyone fails to do so the whole group yells DIGRESSION!!!!! ?

DIGRESSION!: I''m reading Dreams of Joy, Lisa See's novel about an American woman who goes to China during the Great Leap Forward and ends up marrying a local and living on a rural commune. Sections of this thread read exactly like the "struggle sessions" the communards held to help their comrades improve when accused of being "insufficiently red".

You use the word I too often. I, I, I — that sounds like self-exaggeration, self-expression, and self-glorification of the individual. Individuals should never take credit for a good job. The glory goes to our team and to our collective.

Your comrades are telling you that your individualism has not yet been washed clean. You’ve also refused to open your heart to the Party. Understand, our criticism is meant to help you.

You come from far away, and everyone is trying to be understanding of your different ways. But no one in this house can afford your bourgeois activities.

You didn't ask anything constructive about MB's post, you just displayed pettyness [sic] and white-fragility and got blocked for it instead of having a POC explain to a white person what racial privilege is.

(The first three are from the book.)

If your bone density is completely fucked the bone comes from human cadavers.

^So, I suppose, bone jaw loss is reversible, if you consider having someone else’s bone in your jaw as ‘reversed’
^^
^I’d say that’s bit of a stretch, meself.

Well, quite.

The issues around sex based rights and trans women in female only spaces are not affected by race except in some very specific circumstances where services are quite rightly provided only for women from certain ethnic minorities who may not access the services if they were majority white.

Exactly. I will not be silenced on women's rights. I do not require Munroe Bergdorf, a biologically male person's, permission to speak on either female rights or transitioning children. Neither does JK Rowling. Neither does any woman, regardless of her race, or other personal characteristic.

TheSingingKettle49 a white person saying 'what has race got to do with it?' to a person-of-colour is like a man saying 'what has gender got to do with it?' to a woman. Both are silencing, and speaking from their privilege
If, as is the case here, this was in relation to a far broader point, should this hypothetical woman take the time & energy to attempt to educate such a man, or should she block him and move on? Wouldn't you support her choice, either way?

Exactly. I will not be silenced on women's rights. I do not require Munroe Bergdorf, a biologically male person's, permission to speak on either female rights or transitioning children. Neither does JK Rowling. Neither does any woman, regardless of her race, or other personal characteristic.

Thankfully everyone, everywhere is waking up to this.

This thread talking about the letter signed by Salman Rushdie, etc, demanding free speech.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3961470-Excellent-letter-on-Freedom-of-speech-to-appear-in-Harpers-Mag

It's a perfect demonstration of why it is necessary in the first place.

When NoDebate starts to implode, this is what it looks like.

a white person saying 'what has race got to do with it?' to a person-of-colour is like a man saying 'what has gender got to do with it?' to a woman. Both are silencing, and speaking from their privilege

Exactly

MadBadDaddy - nope, a POC saying you can’t comment on women’s rights because you’re white is the person who is trying to silence the other. JKR has not spoken about race so her race was irrelevant, yes she is a woman who has privilege, but she is still a woman talking about issues that affect women.

I do not condone people who have put themselves in a position of being a spokesperson for their community not being able to back up their publicly made statements when questioned on them. If race was a relevant factor MB would’ve been able to back up her statement and strengthened her argument, but she couldn’t.

Yeah but Bergdorf blocked because of vanity, only wants insta to be an admiration society, so all that white fragility blahblah is wasted on a shallow puddle like Bergdorf.

Couldn't? Or didn't want to? There's a difference.

MadBadDaddy - nope, a POC saying you can’t comment on women’s rights because you’re white is the person who is trying to silence the other. JKR has not spoken about race so her race was irrelevant, yes she is a woman who has privilege, but she is still a woman talking about issues that affect women.

I do not condone people who have put themselves in a position of being a spokesperson for their community not being able to back up their publicly made statements when questioned on them. If race was a relevant factor MB would’ve been able to back up her statement and strengthened her argument, but she couldn’t.

//// This.

What of any value can MB add to a discussion on women's rights? What experience does she bring to the table?

If you make a statement on social media and you are well known and purporting to be a spokesperson then you should be prepared to respond to reasonable queries about your position. Asking why JKRs whiteness was relevant in a discussion about women’s rights and trans rights when both live in a predominantly white country is a reasonable question.

If there is an answer to why JKR being white is relevant I’d certainly like to hear it as I’m white myself and it may have some bearing on how I express myself in future. Or is it just that MB thought she could bring race into it as a way to silence women?

TheSingingKettle49 MB is disagreeing with JKR and disputing her suitability to appoint herself as spokesperson for anyone. Her enormous privileges are a factor. I'm sure JKR has stories, like many women, about being a woman struggling and succeeding in a man's world, but how many black billionaire authors are there? JKR has benefited from white privilege. MB has summed all of this up by adding the word 'white' to her long description of JKR

MB is not silencing anyone but OP, who deserved it, IMO

I'm sure JKR has stories, like many women, about being a woman struggling and succeeding in a man's world

You’re a patronising piece of work, aren’t you?

The majority of women in the U.K. have benefited from white privilege, why does that have anything at all to do with women’s and trans rights?

JKR undoubtedly has privilege, just as MB has grown up with male privilege. JKRs experiences as a woman, and remember she hasn’t always been wealthy, are what make her a suitable spokesperson on women’s rights.

To summarise MB's position:

I will talk about being a woman because I feel like one.

You may not talk about women because you're a white one.

What a wanker, eh?

I don't understand 'giving up' privilege.

Did Rachel D give up her white privilege whilst she was 'trans-race'? Or was that itself an act of white privilege, being that she could call her dad and stop it all give it up at any time?

This is a genuine question, as from what I've read/listened to, privilege isn't something you 'give up'.